[Noisebridge-discuss] Response to Rebase Notes

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Thu Jun 27 05:57:10 UTC 2013


I can vouch that the particular idiom is often used to highlight false
premises, rather than actually an accusation of wife-beating.

(More seriously, this is pretty much what I'm going to start boringly
reminding people. After my recent tantrum, I think I'm going to go back to
explaining to people that we're now such a wider and diverse community that
misunderstandings will be inevitable, and it's useful to act like you
assume good faith -- on this list, and in the space.

I think it's okay (or at least inevitable) to secretly *believe* in bad
faith, and occasionally freak out because the bad faith has really begun to
pile up. But you have to amass more evidence than just people's struck
attitudes online before you can act on that assumption.

Also: http://xkcd.com/1053/

d.


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Really, NB? no one knows their way around rhetoric?
>
> OK, so here's the scoop. What I said was a common rhetorical idiom meant
> to illustrate that the original speaker's question is unanswerable due to
> false premises.
>
> See also:
>
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
>
> And try doing an autocomplete experiment starting with "have you stopped".
>
> I am happy to come to the meeting to discuss, but I'd hate for you to
> ditch your parents to just to beat the old "people sound more hostile in
> writing" horse.
>
> I mean you no ill will, dude. We don't know each other well, and I think
> we can safely just hit "reset", you and I, because everything that has
> transpired here tracks back to misunderstandings.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *facepalm*giggle*
>
> I can't. Even. :)
>
> Imma go lift heavy weights now.
>
> Maybe someone can help Johny out with this.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/26/2013 6:57 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
>
> (1) Would you have everything be completely locked up in lockers?
> Everything?
>
>
> No, I never said "everything". I think lockers are needed for personal
> ongoing projects. Currently, the Noise Orchestra hackers have to hide their
> electronics projects in the shelves, and hope they don't get smashed or
> rehacked.
>
>
> My comment -- and another you took issue with -- was meant to inspire
> thinking about how "nice things" could be protected in one way by having
> the people installing them thinking of how to increase the difficulty of
> ability to mess with those "nice things".
>
> I support that. Your meaning was lost in translation.
>
> (2) Do you believe it is actually *possible* to achieve a state of total
> non-theft?
>
>
> No, I never said "total". We should do what we can. Thanks to Alex Buie
> and others for their work on RFID tags.
>
>
> (3) Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Jonny?
>
> this is just a plain abusive, attack on my reputation, undeserved, and
> completely off-topic. I believe your tactic is to "shut me up" by attacking
> me personally.
>
>
> Naomi, i'd like to invite you to attend the next Noisebridge meeting, next
> Tuesday July 2, at about 8pm. Your comment here will be on the agenda. I
> feel this should not be acceptable communication on the list, or in the
> space.
>
>
> I will reschedule my trip to see my parents in LA, to attend this meeting.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130626/348f1ed4/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list